Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With `destructiveHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true` already declared, the description adds the crucial consequence that annotations cannot: setting the standard pins the number and disables Coderbuds' automatic loosening from then on. It does not clarify whether reverting to the default (omitting `target_lines`) also releases the pin, which is the one behavioral question an agent would still have.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and its argument, then usage guidance, then the alternative path — a sensible ordering. It runs long and includes some normative framing ('it is not yours to set or to talk them out of') that is more policy than specification, though it does steer agent behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, preconditions, consequences, and the alternative workflow. The remaining gaps — the repository binding role and whether reverting to default unpins the standard — are narrow but real for a tool that permanently alters team policy.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including 'Omit it to revert to Coderbuds' default.' The description's 'tighter or looser' framing and 'pass the number they said' add minor semantic nuance but largely restate the schema, and the `repository` parameter is never mentioned in the description at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: setting this team's pull request size standard, including the value shape (`target_lines`) and the omit-to-revert behavior. It is clearly distinct from the sibling `record-change-fit-decision-tool`, which it explicitly names as the preferred alternative path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when someone already knows the number and does not want to wait'), when-not-to-use ('You usually will not need this to make room'), the preferred alternative (recording overrides via record-change-fit-decision), and a hard precondition ('Only call it when a person has actually asked'). This is about as complete a routing instruction as a description can carry.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.